Talk:Tommy Franks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
here is == == == ==
[edit] moo
== == == == info to add [1] if you are in the mood. Kingturtle 05:41 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of "military governor". It was not claimed that he had that official title (thus the lowercasing), but that was his de facto status until the civilian framework was set up. - Hephaestos 21:25 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- The the word "defacto" is needed if the term is to be restored. The administration intentionally left such a title out and would disapprove of its use. I think using it is misleading and serves only to glorify the US. And ded he really didn't serve in capacity as a "governor"? Although the admistrator was responsible to him, was he really involved with reconstruction efforts or did he just coordinate the armed forces? I think the civilian administrator is the "acting governor" if you have to name one. --Jiang 21:45 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Moved here from Artillery Officer Candidate School Anjouli 21:01, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Your biography of Gen Franks indicates he was commissioned following Artillery Officer Candidate School at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma in 1967,but this is not the correct name of the school, at least at that time. Until 1968, the Army had but one combat branch for Artillery but referred to its two combat roles as Field and Air Defense. The training school at Ft. Sill was called the US Army Artillery and Missile School. In June of 1968, the Army separated these roles into two separate combat branches: Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery. At that time, the branch ensignia, two crossed cannons split by a missile was adopted by the Air Defense Artillery Branch, and the Field Artillery Branch reverted to the two crossed cannons that had preceded the introduction of its air defense role. Since General Franks was commissioned from OCS in 1967, before the split of Artillery into two branches, the correct title of the school from which he was commissioned at Ft. Sill at that time was The U.S. Army Artillery and Missile Officer Candidate School. And that's how all my documents read. James Snyder, Class 26-67. USAAMOCS. jsnyder@snyderadvisors.com
[edit] Enron connection
Removed paragragh alleging Franks was Vice Chairman of Enron and resigned in 2001 because it is untrue. Original allegation was added by an anonymous contributor several months ago and since it apparently looked too outrageous even to him, it was modified several times the same day to "tone it down".
In 2001 Franks was an active serving officer in the US Army and as such would have been prohibited from holding any position in a private company.
Strother
[edit] Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
I don't know where to cram this in to the page in a good way, but I'd like to add the info Tommy Franks predicted the end of free society if we're hit with another major terrorist attack. It's a pretty bold statement by a highly regarded public figure so I think it should be added in. Link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml Full interview: http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=3470 Mastgrr 22:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] "unraveling the fabric of our Constitution"
As of 12/29/05, this article states that Gen. Franks stated that:
-
- “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
-
- If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
-
- Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
-
- “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
The above quote is then characterized as one that suggests Franks somehow approves of such an "unraveling of the fabric of our Constitution." The article reads:
-
- "Many people were outraged that a highly reguarded public official like Tommy Franks would say something that goes against the very thing that the army is fighting for: freedom."
It seems to me that this is exactly the opposite of Franks' intended meaning. His point is not one of "going against the very thing the army is fighting for: freedom," but rather that he rues the awful consequences of such an attack -- the loss of freedom which could ensue.
[edit] Cleanup
Barrage of redlinks early on, lack of wikifying later, and Strange Capitalization throughout. Sections could use a reworking, especially the section that contains a single quote. Isopropyl 18:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Format
If you look at Marine Corps Generals, they seem to have a uniform formatting for personal information. This article should have that too.
12.149.39.84 12:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Time" magazine vs. "Cigar Afficianado" magazine
Hey there, I noticed in the article that a very famous quote by Franks was attributed to TIME magazine. When the interview actually occurred, I recall reading it on the website of *Cigar Afficianado* magazine -- and that was quoted and excerpted on DOZENS of other websites at the time...
So I believe Time was simply referring to *that* interview. I can't find the original source anymore (it's been a few years!) so that is why I included a link to a video of Keith Olbermann reffering to it (notice he said nothing about TIME magazine!)
So can whoever reverted it please un-revert it, or BETTER YET, clean it up so it is matches the style of Wikipedia articles? I'm not as experienced as many of you... (PS: it was not a "test"!)
^ I agree with the above, see this Google search for other references pointing to C.A. being the origin of the quote: http://www.google.com/search?q=Tommy%20Franks%20Cigar%20Afficianado
[edit] People from Midland, Texas
This link is at the bottom of the page, but there is nothing in his biography that mentions any link to Midland.
If you READ his biography, you will see that he lived in Midland from mid-childhood through high school, graduating from High school there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.145.124 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- It would help if the article actually referenced his biography. This article is severely lacking in sources. Root4(one) 04:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Currently Living
Tommy Franks currently resides afew miles outside of Roosevelt, Oklahoma. Not Hobart as the article previously stated.
[edit] Editorial opinion Washington Post
Moved the editorial opinion from the Washington post from the article page to the discussion page since it is POV. " and operational commander when Bin Laden apparently escaped from Tora Bora.[1] " General Franks was operational commander for Afghanistan during the battle at Tora Bora. According to a Washington Post article by Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks, Franks "misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader." Critics claim that he did not perceive problems at Tora Bora because he ran the war from Tampa, Florida.
These are recycled charges from the 2004 john kerry presidential campaign and as POV do not belong in the article itself-claffey27
[edit] charity allegations
Moved this following information to the talk page. It appears to violate NPOV since the dollar amount of reimbursement directly contradicts the amounts in the source and is written with a critical POV.
"Franks was paid $100,000 to endorse the Coalition to Support American Heroes, a veterans charity that Congressional investigators found to be ripping off donors and wounded veterans by using only about 25% of the money raised for veterans services. Harry Chapin, president of the Coalition to Support American Heroes, testified to Congress that the charity paid him and his wife salaries of $561,971 each, paid his $17,000 membership in a California golf club, reimbursed them for more than $340,000 in expenses for meals, hotels and entertainment, and purchased them $444,600 condominium in northern Virginia. Michael Hayes, chief of staff for Franks & Associates LLC, testified that "[General Franks] ended his support for the CSAH in late 2005 when he learned that the percent of money raised that was going to the troops was less than 85 percent, a figure which was then and remains today his critertia for supporting charitable organizations."[2]" Bayspatriot (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've rewritten this section with additional references, neutral tone of voice and insured the amounts matched the sources. Yes, it is a criticism. It is a common mistake to think that Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV means "no" point-of-view. Instead:
If you can find a reliable source that states, say, it was a good thing that Franks collected the money, then it should be added. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
